• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scientists predict how to detect a new dimension

Rob Lister

Unregistered
R
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
8,504
Scientists predict how to detect a new dimension
DUKE AND RUTGERS UNIVERSITIES NEWS RELEASE
Posted: May 29, 2006

Scientists at Duke and Rutgers universities have developed a mathematical framework they say will enable astronomers to test a new five-dimensional theory of gravity that competes with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Charles R. Keeton of Rutgers and Arlie O. Petters of Duke base their work on a recent theory called the type II Randall-Sundrum braneworld gravity model. The theory holds that the visible universe is a membrane (hence "braneworld") embedded within a larger universe, much like a strand of filmy seaweed floating in the ocean. The "braneworld universe" has five dimensions -- four spatial dimensions plus time -- compared with the four dimensions -- three spatial, plus time -- laid out in the General Theory of Relativity.
Click to expand...

I'd like to read our more betterestly edumacated member's comments on this.

I find it facinating...not because I understand it but because their are actually people on this world that
1) can think up theories like this, and
2) find ways to actually test them.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0605/29dimension/
 
Looks like another missunderstanding of the universe...However you look at the world it's composed of four dimentions higth, width, depth, and size.

Size is a point of dispute. but by defintion a dimention must be 90 degrees out of alinement with all other proven exsiting dimentions and be infinate in it's structure. Size meets all of these requiments, if you know of other reqierments please let me know. FRANK SAYS.
 
Last edited:
Incorrect

neil said:
Looks like another missunderstanding of the universe...However you look at the world it's composed of four dimentions higth, width, depth, and size.

Size is a point of dispute. but by defintion a dimention must be 90 degrees out of alinement with all other proven exsiting dimentions and be infinate in it's structure. Size meets all of these requiments, if you know of other reqierments please let me know. FRANK SAYS.
Click to expand...


You are only thinking in 3 dimintions. A dimintion(sp?) does not have to be 90 degrees out alignment. Time, as previsouly stated, is a diminsion. It has no degrees.
 
neil said:
Looks like another missunderstanding of the universe...However you look at the world it's composed of four dimentions higth, width, depth, and size.

Size is a point of dispute. but by defintion a dimention must be 90 degrees out of alinement with all other proven exsiting dimentions and be infinate in it's structure. Size meets all of these requiments, if you know of other reqierments please let me know. FRANK SAYS.
Click to expand...

An important property of a dimension is its relationship to matter. Size doesn't.
 
neil said:
Looks like another missunderstanding of the universe...However you look at the world it's composed of four dimentions higth, width, depth, and size.

Size is a point of dispute. but by defintion a dimention must be 90 degrees out of alinement with all other proven exsiting dimentions and be infinate in it's structure. Size meets all of these requiments, if you know of other reqierments please let me know. FRANK SAYS.
Click to expand...

This isn't right.

It isn't even wrong.
 
Overman said:
You are only thinking in 3 dimintions. A dimintion(sp?) does not have to be 90 degrees out alignment. Time, as previsouly stated, is a diminsion. It has no degrees.
Click to expand...
Time is a measure of distance within a volume of space defined by the four previasly meantioned dementions. FRANK SAYS.
 
neil said:
Size is a point of dispute. but by defintion a dimention must be 90 degrees out of alinement with all other proven exsiting dimentions and be infinate in it's structure.
Click to expand...


Since nobody else has bothered to mention it.. I'll take this moment to say "No", to your "it must be infinate" requirement.
 
drkitten said:
This isn't right.

It isn't even wrong.
Click to expand...
Most deep thinking complicated individuals live in an unreally complex dream of their on making. The world around you is made simple and is understandabe in its concepts and laws, that no amount of tinking can change. FRANK SAYS.
 
neil said:
Most deep thinking complicated individuals live in an unreally complex dream of their on making. The world around you is made simple and is understandabe in its concepts and laws, that no amount of tinking can change.
Click to expand...

Once again, "this isn't even wrong."
 
neil said:
Looks like another missunderstanding of the universe...However you look at the world it's composed of four dimentions higth, width, depth, and size.
Click to expand...

Umm... shouldn't that be (x,y,z,ct), in effect making time the 4th dimension? What would 'size' have to do with anything, and in what paradigm has size ever been considered a dimension? Who, exactly, is misunderstanding the universe?

Size is a point of dispute. but by defintion a dimention must be 90 degrees out of alinement with all other proven exsiting dimentions
Click to expand...

Overman said:
You are only thinking in 3 dimintions. A dimintion(sp?) does not have to be 90 degrees out alignment. Time, as previsouly stated, is a diminsion.
Click to expand...

Umm, the 4 dimensions (x,y,z,ct) will be orthogonal. Their dot product is zero. In 2D Cartesian coordinates representation, orthogonal vectors are separated by 90 degrees.

by defintion a dimention must be 90 degrees out of alinement with all other proven exsiting dimentions and be infinate in it's structure. Size meets all of these requiments, if you know of other reqierments please let me know. FRANK SAYS.
Click to expand...

How the... what the... what?

Isn't 'size' a convenient term, defined in terms of the three spatial dimensions?

...

... what drkitten said.

:boggled:
 
Once again, "this isn't even wrong."
Click to expand...

It looks quite wrong.

But I know what you mean.


I have to say, I've always struggled with this concept myself. Mathematically, no sweat, just keep adding dimensions, but trying to envisage it... gah! Headache.
I saw a pop science programme a while ago (Horizon I think) about string theory, and the debate about how many dimensions were required. At one stage they had a nice graphic of a sort of multi-coloured ribbon thing flying through the sky distorting everything behind it. One of the scientists said something along the lines of "these extra dimensions may be as small as a few millimetres across". WTF? How can you describe a width for a dimension? It's not as if you can say that "height" is about four feet wide.

I expect it was the conflagration of my visually-literal mind and poor science journalism, but still. Can anyone help? Dr Kitten?
 
Last edited:
You sure it was a show about string theory and not bass fishing? You sure the ribbon thing wasn't a lure?
 
Molinaro said:
Since nobody else has bothered to mention it.. I'll take this moment to say "No", to your "it must be infinate" requirement.
Click to expand...
THANKS. So what is the structure relationship needed to exspress the form of infinity related to dementions? FRANK SAYS.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom